Jump to content

Talk:Balance of nature

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Initial Comments

[edit]

Isn't this phrase also used to describe the relationship between populations and their (plant) food sources, as well as predator/prey?

Also, don't predator/prey population sizes behave chaotically? Presently the article seems to cite true random events (death of a pack leader for example) rather than deterministic (albeit chaotic) processes.

Just a thought. TrulyBlue (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right.. I consider this article to be in its initial stages. If you have anything to add, then please do so :).Dark hyena (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added the above. Should it have a mention of the Gaia theory added as the personification of nature? TrulyBlue (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not overly familiar with the Gaia theory. Looking it up, it seems like an even greater anthropomorphisation of nature than the topic of this article. Personally, based on my limited knowledge, I'd add it as a "see also" option, however, if you think there is anything significant warranting mention here, then please share it.Dark hyena (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this categorized under intelligent design and creation science when the article doesn't mention them at all? I can imagine that some people might see the Hand of God behind the perceived balance of nature, but I don't think that is enough to add the category without any explanation. --Itub (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The balance of nature as pseuodoscience?

[edit]

This article should include more information about people who use the concept of a balance of nature, such as Rachel Carson and John Muir. These writers do not automatically assume negative feedback or permanently in balance. Instead they understood the interaction and interdependency of the balance as dynamic and fragile.Quelist (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discrediting of the balance of nature theory isn't particularly well put. It says that nature is a constant state of fluctuation and disturbance, yes, but that doesn't discredit the idea that ecosystems are balanced. Surely balance refers to the ability to rebound from fluctuation and disturbance. I agree.

Corinne Zimmerman (Department of Psychology, Campus Box 4620, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois 61790-4620, USA, czimmer@ilstu.edu ) implies that there no is equilibrium in the natural landscape. No, there is. By denying that the natural landscape can be quick on its feet, so to speak, one is an apologist for resource extractors and forest groomers. The terms equilibrium and balance of nature are perfectly good grammatical terms in themselves. I think that university students know that when we say balance in a biological sense we really mean dynamic balance. That's a given. There is a natural landscape that when disturbed (usually by man) will return to a variant natural landscape, but the natural landscape nonetheless. I recommend that Corinne Zimmerman's citation be deleted. Rstafursky (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Burn a forest down and it will, eventually, grow back. Kill off most the prey and the predators will suffer until the prey returns. And surely the evolutionary arms-race dictates that if one species gets an advantage, something will evolve to oppose it?

I'm not saying the mystical connotations of nature's balance are right, but it seems pretty stupid to throw out the whole idea simply because 'an angry wolf will eat a lot of prey'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.68.234 (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the idea of balance is that predator/prey remain in harmony with each other. There is no evidence for this at all in any population.Mariomassone (talk) 08:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit to expand this with Catastrophe theory and Chaos theory and the now more talked of Tipping point Mashzeroth (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I've broken the last sentence up in the hope of making it more comprehendable. Mashzeroth (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term "permanently in balance" is used in the main article and it is said that that is discredited, but that is a straw man. "Permanently in balance" is semantically not the same as "balance of nature." No one is saying that the "balance of nature" means permanency nor does it mean chaos. It is more like the natural forces and processes linger for a long time and only change by biological and physical evolution. I'm not sure why some contributors are so keen on denying any natural return when it is obvious that it occurs. Rstafursky (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with the sentiment of this section here; this article definitely seems to reflect bias. The idea that there is balance in nature is more of a metaphor the same as the idea of cultural progress is, rather than a direct analogue to an ecological principle, but nonetheless it's widely accepted in ecology that stable states are resistant to change. There's no section on the article for Alternative Stable States about how it's been debunked, for instance. This article should either be solely about the the metaphor of balance in nature, like how it's used in media or religious themes (like Taoism), in which case saying a literary tool is discredited would be out of place, or making it clear that there's a distinction between the stronger anthropomorphic balance referred to in Gaia theory and the mainstream concept of ecological resilience.

As it stands now this article doesn't even clarify what the discredited concept is and merely argues against it. It'd be much better suited renamed to 'opposition to the balance of nature' or as a section titled 'criticism' within an article actually about the balance of nature as a concept. 184.153.133.97 (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf example in the predator-prey section

[edit]

I have replaced "dominant, aggressive wolf" with "a wolf with particularly good hunting skills", as dominance and aggression have nothing to do with hunting, ie securing food. I also removed "mass" from "mass pack starvation" as superfluous, as it would be in "mass family starvation". The tone of the previous phrasing also generally seemed in line with erroneous ideas about wolf packs, see What ever happened to the term alpha-wolf Mashzeroth (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having come back and reinforced the Chaos Theory and Lotka–Volterra equation the wolf example seemed superfluous so I have removed it. Mashzeroth (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions re: history

[edit]

This was mistakenly placed at the top of the article: 2601:188:0:ABE6:B53D:47CE:83E6:3C5F (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • your information on the history of the balance of nature is incorrect. For me to write a correct history, I need some guidance on how long you want it. Here are correct sources:

Frank N. Egerton, "Changing Concepts of the Balance of Nature," Quarterly Review of Biology 48 (June 1973) 322-350. F.N.Egerton, Roots of Ecology: Antiquity to Haeckel (Berkeley, Univ. of Calif. Pres, 2012). John Kricher, The Balance of Nature: Ecology's Enduring Myth (Princeton Univ. Press, 2009).

Sincerely, Frank N. Egerton 26 July 15

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Balance of nature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Balance_of_nature&oldid=1199347571"